Printable View
Fasten your seat belt, Slugworth, ‘cause there’s plenty more of my kind rising up (you know: sensible, intelligent, forward-thinking, community-minded folk).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
By the way, how’s your definition of western culture coming along?
No I get it fine. To abolish all other taxes and solely use a national sales tax for taxes, that bag of cheetos would have to cost around $17.95. It's impractical for everyone to do a national sales tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
I love it when people have outrage at this but not some rich guy who pays $5,000 in taxes on $200 million in assets because he hid all his money in a Cayman islands bank account.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
Both are cheats, the rich guy is taking more of your money than the hockey pal.
This hits at the problem across every single thread from some. I think this way so everyone else needs to conform/fit in, in fact you will actually see him saying others need to fit in quite often. That is exactly the way Trump acts, he isn't in office due to a fluke but because of the mentality taking over many in politics (just like I point out with identity politics/Hillary on other side too it isn't one side).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye15
Like seriously Sluggo's example here seems to be that this one guy he knows buys hockey tickets while receiving some lunch benefit for his kid then saying it happens more than you think. Oh the horrors of being poor and wanting to have a life.
Yes, we get it. There will always be wealth inequality.
As a result largely of astounding good luck, complemented in some cases by hard work, there are those who are worth more than others.
I have no problem with their contributing a lot more than others.
Go back and reread…National sates tax replaces income tax and is addition to local and state taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
Of the two people you describe…who costs me the most money.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
One guy buys something he cannot afford and takes something he doesn't need.
The rich guy doesn't cost me a dime. Does he take advantage of legal loopholes? You bet (as do I and would I). You want to close those loopholes, I'm fine with that. But as it stands, the guy ripping off lunch money costs me more than the guy banking in the Caymans.
I know it man. Sluggo, as I have told him, reminds me of my Dad. I love my Dad, he is arguably the most intelligent man I know in most matters. That being said, he can't see anything, any topic, any situation, from any point of view except his own. It's crippling to any argument he has when it comes to politics or social matters. He just isn't capable of it. I think many people are guilty of this. In fact, when I realized I was viewing the world like that, it made me step back, and really take a look at the situation of others. To this day, anytime I am about to judge someone, I stop, and try and put myself in their shoes. Can I always do so? No, of course not. But I am at least trying to understand someone else's actions or decisions and realize while they may not be what I did, or decided, how can I judge another without walking in their shoes?Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
We have 1 life man. 1. Then we turn to dirt. I, have no desire to spend it working 70 hours a week or hiding my money in a piggybank to save, save, save. There is a balance. And I am fine, I have a great life. But I am considered upper middle class, and to me, that is a joke. If my life is better than 85% of the rest of the US, dude, we got problems haha.
well that guy banking in the caymans does impact you, and everyone else he cheated out of tax money. Directly? No. Indirectly? Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
So if he defaults on a loan, credit card, mortgage…I guess that's OK too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mngopher35
If he steals a car from someone with a lot of cars…no prob there.
You're justifying bad behavior.
Were you one of those guys that cut out on me without paying your fare when I was driving a cab?
First, no he is not taking advantage of legal loopholes. What he is doing is illegal. It is illegal to hide US based income in offshore accounts for the purposes of evading taxes. In fact, the guy getting free lunch for his kid is using the actual legal loophole to get his kid that free lunch, and you are mad at him for doing so, but fine if a rich person does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
Second, he is absolutely costing you money. The US government is not getting the money it is by law owed from this person because of his illegal activities. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying a person who doesn't pay their rent isn't technically costing the landlord any money because they haven't taken any of their money.
So my question is, why are you OK with a rich person taking advantage of legal loopholes, but not OK with poor people doing so?
If you're poor you're a bad person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
You seem to think an awful lot of yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
You strike me as one of the Homeowner Association people that the community detests.
But I could be wrong.
I don’t follow. If you are hiding a ton of money you should be paying taxes on middle class guys like me probably just get taxed more to pay for government stuff. I would think the guy not paying taxes on 100 million bucks is costing me more then the kid getting free milk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Haha. I never thought I would need more then 50 grand then I got married. No kids but if you don’t want to rent in the ghetto like I did most of my adult life you need money. My pops was a bus driver and we didn’t spend money but he also had a big suburban house. The house he brought in the 70s for a song cost half a million now. Times have changed. Money doesn’t go as far. Sluggo has points but he is also wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye15
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The attempt you make seems to be the most important step imo. I got briefly into it in another thread but the idea everyone should be voting for what they want/like against shared realities is a huge problem today. You want to know who else always thinks he is right and goes against shared realities and we pretend it is some crazy outlier? Trump. He is the epitome of this attitude from a political standpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye15
When I discuss politics with people who like to have in depth conversations what I have largely found is a gap in the way people view government/voting when discussing how it should work and how they actually vote.
1. The best thing for government to do is maximize the objective good for everyone in America
Do they agree that should be the goal? Yes, almost always. Do they act that way when voting? I have found through logically going step by step with people that they often don't and the difference is the attempt to stay objective instead of going into your own subjective wants.
Like with the wall do you need the wall because you/your side wants it or will you read the link I shared like 5 times now and discuss what would be the best rational steps forward for everyone? We have found on PSD those conversations about what logically should we be doing don't really happen while the Omar thread talks about is Muslim identity is valid in politics or the threads where actions of a few are now defining the left/dems or communism is taking over with Bernie/AOC etc. etc. trying to just lump things with sides and choose for/against based on wants instead of logic/facts/stats/data/science and at least making an attempt to be objective in situations.
I tend to agree personally with that last statement but at the same time if people want to work 80+ hours per week or do things I might consider dumb with their one life go ahead. So long as it is within the rules/system in place then who am I to say my own beliefs/realities are greater or more important than theirs. That is what we should be doing logically talking about the system and how to improve it for the benefit of everyone. Giving an example of one person considered poor who qualifies for a lunch program for his kid but also buys hockey tickets is insanity when trying to be logical about the whole picture. It also shows that mentality front and center of just wanting to judge people/groups for things you consider right/wrong personally.
I don’t think those are equivalent behaviors. If gets the free lunch it’s probably bc he qualifies for it. Maybe it’s based on AGI and he claims a business loss. Regardless despite him getting it not being in the spirit of the rule he qualifies and he isn’t welching like if he did not pay his debts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You never mentioned anything and how in the world do I know why he is doing these things?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
I am simply choosing not to rush to judgement when I hear someone buys hockey tickets and also has his kid on a lunch program lol. You want me to jump to conclusions because you have made this into a sides thing and he is on the bad side.
Does the answer to this matter in anyway to the logic of what I am saying? The answer is no I have never done that in my life. Again you are so set on this game of good/bad and putting people into groups/sides. Who I am as a person or what I may have done at some point in my life isn't relevant to whether or not this guy buying hockey tickets while on a lunch program should be judged solely off that.
I think Sluggo is against the free lunch more then the tax cheat bc the free lunch guy is taking a hand out while the tax cheat is hording. It is a different sin so I can understand that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's how sales tax work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter_White
Also, that's how cap and trade works too.
I think refusing sympathy and kindness and understand for any group of people is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye15
That's one of those things that there isn't a scarcity of.
How is the rich guy taking my money if he's not paying taxes on HIS income?Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
Unless you feel we have the right to other peoples income, and them filing taxes to get their held earnings back is some sort of graft on their part.
Smash Like Button!Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
Those are special taxesQuote:
Originally Posted by ciaban2.0
The government does. It's called taxes. Unless you are an anarchist you also believe that the Government has the right to take other people's money.Quote:
Originally Posted by ciaban2.0
If the rich guy isn't paying on taxes he legally owes, it falls on you and me to pay more in taxes to make up for the lost revenue the government isn't getting.
It's a pretty basic concept. If 5 guys pitch in on a pizza for $20 each guy owes $4, however if one of those guys hides the money and doesn't pay, now 4 of you must pay $5 for that same pizza.
According to your logic the guy who hides his money and doesn't pay for the pizza is perfectly fine to do so because after all, he's not taking your money at all.
As a nation, we have already established the legal right for the government to take money from individuals in order to serve the common good.Quote:
Originally Posted by ciaban2.0
I suppose we could argue whether that is a moral right — but that is an argument that goes nowhere at this point.
The bottom line is that we have a national graduated income tax. And, check me if I’m wrong, but I do not believe that there are any of us truly willing to give up every single thing we receive from the government.
So, as best I can see, we have two choices: (1) eliminate the graduated income tax and replace it with (a) a flat tax or (b) some other tax — a national sales tax has been suggested, or (2) decide what percentages we want the tiers to be (ranging from 0% to 92% over the past 75 years).
If (1). The burden of change is on those who want change. Please explain why we would eliminate it. Because it’s not fair?
If (2), then as Winston Churchill is reported to have said to the woman who agreed to sleep with him for a million pounds but not for one pound: “we’ve already established what you are; we are just haggling over the price.”
this woman. :facepalm:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...ddress-factory
as if the only thing you get from cows are hamburgers.Quote:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) sought to explain a recent document from her office that linked “farting cows” to climate change, saying that serious climate policy needs to address agriculture.
A set of frequently asked questions released by her office this month as part of the rollout of her "Green New Deal" proposal to fight climate change mentioned cow flatulence as a problem, but her staff later denounced the document.
Ocasio-Cortez didn’t directly defend the statement in an interview that aired late Thursday on Showtime’s "Desus & Mero," but said that climate policy might need to look into reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
“In the deal, what we talk about is ... that we need to take a look at factory farming, period. It’s wild,” she told hosts Desus Nice and The Kid Mero on the premier of their show’s first season on the network.
“And so, it’s not to say you get rid of agriculture. It’s not to say we’re going to force everybody to go vegan or anything crazy like that. But it’s to say, listen, we’ve got to address factory farming. Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Like, let’s keep it real,” she continued.
“We have to take a look at everything.”
The resolution she introduced with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) didn’t propose any measures to control greenhouse gas emissions from livestock, nor did the frequently asked questions document.
“We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero, emissions in 10 years because we aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast,” the document said.
Despite Ocasio-Cortez's staff denouncing the document, and the "farting cows" line not being in the resolution itself, it has stuck with opponents of the Green New Deal and led to accusations that the plan would outlaw beef.
“I really don’t like their policy of taking away your car, of taking away your airplane flights ... of, ‘You’re not allowed to own cows anymore,’” Trump said at a recent Texas campaign rally.
While cow flatulence is often mentioned as a greenhouse gas source, the animal's belches are the main source of methane, from their enteric fermentation.
Methane is a greenhouse gas about 80 percent times more potent than carbon dioxide by volume.
Methane from cows is the main greenhouse gas source from agriculture, and its output is on the rise, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
But agriculture as a whole only accounts for 9 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gases, EPA figures show, far behind bigger emitters like transportation and electricity generation.
Don't know if I ever had a burger for breakfast.
I eat bacon and sausage in the A.M.
Has she mentioned pigs yet? Or better still, have her handlers told her to mention pigs yet?
Perhaps, then, this is one of the hallmark features of “western civilization?”Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
Lol.. so AOC is basically now telling us what we shouldn't eat? Lmao. Leftists are starting to use "Democratic socialism" to push their truly socialist ideas.
I eat an egg burger for breakfast because AOC says I can't eat beef burgers. Soon, no more egg burgers. Only lettuce burgers. This is the same AOC who was saddened that a restaurant she used to work for closed down. This is what she said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sluggo1
"The restaurant I used to work at is closing its doors. I swung by today to say hi one last time and kid around with friends like old times," she said on Monday. "I'm a normal, working person who chose to run for office, because I believe we can have a better future. You can do it too. We all can."
Okay, everything she said sounds great, yeah?
Except the restaurant said they had to close because higher taxes, minimum wage increasing, and other costs made it difficult for them to continue operating.
So AOC's policies are why that restaurant is shutting down and yet, she has the nerve to take a photo of that restaurant and pretend she will fix the issue. Quite hilarious, really. While her fellow co-workers are unemployed, she earns a seat for $180k salary. And to top it off, takes a damn photo of herself acting so cheerful. What an idiot.
Here's the full story:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/0...s-she-supports
But hey, she has millions of people who actually think he's a genius of some sort so that must obviously means she is revolutionary!
I noticed the reporter conveniently neglected to follow up on the issue of the “skyrocketing” rent.
I have noticed that people more on the left here at PSD typically don't want to comment on the stupidity of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crovash
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-until-you-try
Quote:
AOC to critics of Green New Deal: 'I'm the boss' until you try
AOC thinks that she is the boss. :shrug:Quote:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., dismissed detractors of her Green New Deal on Friday, saying to any critic who has yet to offer their own bold environmental ideas: "Until you do it, I'm the boss."
The freshman congresswoman made the comment at a “Girls Who Code” event in the Queens borough of New York City.
"Like I just introduced the Green New Deal two weeks ago, and it's creating all of this conversation. Why? Because no one else has even tried. Because no one else has even tried," she told moderator Reshma Saujani, founder and CEO of Girl Who Code.
"So people are like, 'Oh it's unrealistic. Oh it's vague. Oh it doesn't address this little minute thing,'" she added. "And I'm like, 'You try. You do it. Cuz you're not. Cuz you're not. So, until you do it, I'm the boss.' How about that?'"
The comments were met with laughter and cheers.
The resolution was authored by Ocasio-Cortez and longtime climate advocate Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. It is nonbinding but calls for Congress to take the lead in ridding the nation of fossil fuels in the next few decades, among other dramatic environmental and economic changes.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is fast-tracking the resolution through the Senate, enabling a vote as early as next week, in an effort to force Democrats and several of their presidential candidates to go on record as soon as next week on a plan that has attracted ridicule and split the party.
I love this woman. She brings the GOP new voters on a weekly basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpecialFNK
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpecialFNK
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpecialFNK
:cricket: :cricket:
calling out something stupid shouldn't be this hard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpecialFNK
.Quote:
ob·ses·sionDictionary result for obsession
/əbˈseSHən/Submit
noun
the state of being obsessed with someone or something.
"she cared for him with a devotion bordering on obsession"
an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind.
plural noun: obsessions
It never ceases to amaze me how out of touch you clowns are.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo
I've never seen anyone triggered quite like conservatives anytime AOC says something. It's hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo
You can laugh all you want. In the meantime, she will be busy weaponizing 2020 for the GOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
Weather you are right or wrong painting everyone in a group by the actions of one of its members is not something members of either side should be proud ofQuote:
Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk